cs.SEJul 14, 2026

Form, Not Content? A Preregistered, Placebo-Controlled Evaluation of Learned Error-Conditioned Self-Repair Through Prompts and Weights in Frozen Small Code Models

Authors: Mehmet Iscan

Abstract

Frozen small code LLMs are deployed locally, yet the information guiding a retry after a failed attempt is still measured without placebo controls in the self-repair literature. We treat a failed program as a conjecture and an execution counterexample as an oracle-relative refutation, and introduce PoPE (Popperian Placebo-controlled Evaluation): a methodology for measuring whether evidence that falsifies LLM-generated code can be used operationally by that same model. In PoPE, error content is paired with channel-specific placebos that keep the predeclared scaffold while ablating task-relevant content or deranging the task-error assignment. Frozen small code models (0.5-1.5B) are evaluated under preregistered rules through a prompt channel and a weight channel (small-data adapter training), with four generations per arm-unit pair. In the prompt channel, public-tier screening unlocked 12 units under the content-ablated form placebo versus 10 under the live error-pattern arm on a 40-unit resistant band; the result was recorded as mechanism-null. In the weight channel, an 8-8 tie was observed between the error-content adapter and the intervention-free baseline (p=1.0), while the SHA-deranged placebo adapter stayed ahead with 10 unlocks; content-attributable superiority was not confirmed. These results do not constitute evidence of equivalence or non-inferiority. Equivalence was not tested separately. Findings are restricted to the public-tier screening endpoint; hidden-tier confirmation was deferred by design. We read this not as compiled criticism disappearing as information, but as the loss of its external role in testing a new conjecture: when a representation learned from the oracle is written back into the generation state, testing is replaced by conditioning. No working JEPA-RL controller is claimed. PoPE is presented as a placebo-controlled, retestable measurement standard.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 30, 2026cs.SE

Falsification, Not Exposure: An Internally Preregistered Placebo-Controlled Decomposition of Self-Repair Feedback in Frozen Small Code Models

In deployment settings where retraining is infeasible, small frozen code models are routinely asked to repair a failed program after seeing their own failing output, usually treated as a retry mechanism. From a Popperian view, a generated program is a conjecture and a test-execution violation is an oracle-relative, executable counterexample, so feedback's value should be attributed not to re-exposure to failing code but to whether the conjecture is opened to external, executable criticism. As the third stage of a falsification-centered measurement program, this study builds a placebo-controlled instrument that decomposes the feedback packet against a blind-resampling baseline at matched output-generation budget and against content-free, shape-matched placebos. The contribution is not a new repair algorithm but a reflexive methodology (packet decomposition, placebo mirroring, matched-budget discordant-pair tests, fresh-generation confirmation, executable audits) that makes both the model's program conjecture and the researcher's "feedback content works" claim falsifiable. Across six HumanEval+/MBPP+ cells with three 0.5B-1.5B frozen models, 290 dead task-cell units (no best-of-8 candidate passing the public tier) were evaluated; the main run produced 7,000 fresh generations and a preregistered follow-up 1,400 more. Blind resampling exceeded bare-code retry by +18 net unlocks (25/7, Holm p=0.0021). Code-plus-facts recovered +18 over bare code (21/3, p=0.00042) and +15 over a generic-bullet placebo (p=0.0041). An instruction-only effect was not distinguishable (+3, p=0.36). Code-plus-facts and blind resampling tied at 26 unlocks each (not equivalence). Six external-controller follow-ups tied a content-free shape placebo. In this regime, falsification helped not as vocabulary or self-critique, but as comparison with external, executable counterexamples.
Mehmet Iscan
FalsificationControlled StudyRetryingCritique
AskPDF
Jun 4, 2026cs.SE

Scaffold, Not Vocabulary? A Controlled, Two-Tier, Pre-Registered Study of a Popperian Code-Generation Skill

Large language models increasingly write, review, and judge code, and a fast-growing practice equips them with prompt 'skills' that ask the model to reason like a scientist. A prominent example tells the model to act as a Popperian falsificationist, and such skills are reported to improve generated code. But these gains are almost always read off an LLM-as-a-judge, an instrument with documented positional, self-preference, and stylistic biases. We ask: if it appears to help, is the gain from the skill's Popperian content, or from the structure any scaffold imposes? We pre-register a two-tier ablation with three controls: a length-matched placebo, a labels-only scaffold that keeps the Popperian headers but strips the procedure, and an execution oracle (HumanEval+ unit tests), plus a vocabulary-halo sentinel and a same-model self-judge audit. On a frontier model (Claude Sonnet 4.6, N=163) all conditions sit near the benchmark ceiling and do not separate, so the pre-registered +5-point improvement is not supported (a ceiling-limited non-detection). On a small model (Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B, N=164) structured arms lift best-of-eight correctness by 20-22 points, but the full skill shows no separable benefit over a labels-only scaffold (aggregate F@8=L@8 vs V@8=34.8%), and the placebo trails by only 2.4 points. A 0.5B self-judge applying the Popperian rubric does not beat random selection and concentrates 60% of its picks on one index. In the two settings tested, the skill's Popperian procedural content adds no separable execution-correctness benefit beyond a labels-only scaffold, so the gains track scaffold structure. We contribute a calibrated negative result and a reusable disambiguation protocol; the finding bounds an engineering claim about one prompt-skill family and is not an evaluation of Popperian methodology in general.
Mehmet Iscan
AI Code GenerationScaffoldsFairjudge ModelsAgent Skill LibrariesVocabulary
AskPDF
Jun 15, 2026cs.SE

Selection Without Signal, Recovery Through Expression: A Measurement Study of Post-Hoc Falsification Operators for Frozen Small Code Models

Frozen small code models (<=1.5B parameters, run locally without fine-tuning) suit offline and privacy-constrained use, but often emit plausible-but-wrong programs. A natural remedy is a post-hoc operator that selects, verifies, repairs, or re-processes the model's samples without retraining; in principled form it is Popperian: attack each candidate with a severe test, keep what survives. We measure whether such operators help. Under one deterministic execution oracle and a leakage-free, matched-compute protocol, 26 semantic post-hoc operators (selection, verification, repair, elimination, portfolios, sound vetoes, generation conditioning) are evaluated against Best-of-N (BoN); on the cells and benchmarks tested, none improves held-out accuracy over BoN. The negative is mechanistic: a coverage wall (systematic hard-task failures deeper sampling does not rescue), a capability scissors (a competent generator leaves almost no discriminable error among visible-test passers), and a near-empty consensus trap (the visible-pass-but-hidden-wrong majority a leakage-free selector needs rarely co-occurs with a correct alternative). A distribution-free do-no-harm bound cannot certify a harm rate <=alpha at zero observed harm unless n>=45. Two operators help on a different axis, outside the semantic output space. An expression-layer recovery (M1), the only accuracy gain here, recovers correct programs the standard extractor discards (robust extraction and public-test signature alignment); it does no harm (b10=0), is leakage-free, and lifts DeepSeek-Coder-1.3B by +12 tasks on HumanEval+ (p=2.4e-4). An adaptive consensus early-stop (ACE) is a calibrated compute-saving control (~19% saving, zero harm). M1 and the selection negative replicate on HumanEval+ and MBPP+ across three model cells. The lesson: fix the harness and measure coverage before blaming semantic post-hoc reasoning.
Mehmet Iscan
Post-Hoc
AskPDF